This uses Oceania rather than Australia, so a bunch of poorer countries are included and North America is first, followed closely by Oceania.
PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP. International Monetary Fund numbers, 2023:
North America, $64,279
Oceania, $62,900
Europe, $50,110
South America, $19,506
Asia and Pacific, $18,406
Africa, $6,341
Antarctica, $0
EDIT: I should note, though, that the whole “NATO spending commitment” thing as well as some of the Ukraine donation charts I’ve seen are measured in terms of percent-of-GDP rather than absolute value, so it’ll take the different sizes of economies into account, more-or-less. Arguably, that’s biased a bit towards wealthy economies still, since some costs are going to be more-or-less fixed across societies, like food and basic shelter, and the “ability to spend on things” should maybe be based on money above-and-beyond that. But it does at least partially account for the fact that Estonia is much smaller than the US, and less wealthy per-capita than Luxembourg.
Why do you use per capita if the GDP also supports your point? If you compare wealth or economic power it does not seem important how many people achieve this.
Europe is the richest continent by far. They simply need to step up production and deliveries to make the outcome clear.
Ten artillery shells per ruzzki tank and five per ruzzki soldier would make the outcome pretty one-sided 😉
I looked this up a while back. IIRC, it’s Australia (one well-to-do country) followed by North America followed by Europe.
googles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_continents_by_GDP
This uses Oceania rather than Australia, so a bunch of poorer countries are included and North America is first, followed closely by Oceania.
PPP-adjusted per-capita GDP. International Monetary Fund numbers, 2023:
North America, $64,279
Oceania, $62,900
Europe, $50,110
South America, $19,506
Asia and Pacific, $18,406
Africa, $6,341
Antarctica, $0
EDIT: I should note, though, that the whole “NATO spending commitment” thing as well as some of the Ukraine donation charts I’ve seen are measured in terms of percent-of-GDP rather than absolute value, so it’ll take the different sizes of economies into account, more-or-less. Arguably, that’s biased a bit towards wealthy economies still, since some costs are going to be more-or-less fixed across societies, like food and basic shelter, and the “ability to spend on things” should maybe be based on money above-and-beyond that. But it does at least partially account for the fact that Estonia is much smaller than the US, and less wealthy per-capita than Luxembourg.
Why do you use per capita if the GDP also supports your point? If you compare wealth or economic power it does not seem important how many people achieve this.
Who will use these weapons, Ukrainians? They are all dead, and russia still has artillery.
yes, Ukrainians, because contrary to your completely baseless assertion, they’re still very much alive